Search

The original German version of this text is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=3767069 This series of papers deals with issues of contract law in Industrie 4.0. It is based on the law of the Federal Republic of Germany. Part 1 introduces the topic and explains the legal problems that arise in Industrie 4.0. Part 2 deals with issues of contract law: How are contracts concluded among autonomous software agents, what types of contracts come into question, and how must general terms and conditions be structured. Part 3 looks at issues of licensing law and intellectual property in data. Part 4 looks at the liability of autonomous systems in Industry and provides an outlook on possible future solutions. Industrial production is increasingly taking place in digitized value chains in which numerous independent companies cooperate in digital networks. Within the framework of such cross-company cooperation, industrial manufacturing processes autonomously manage themselves via integrated IT networks. This control increasingly makes use of intelligent systems that act either as autonomous software agents, in conjunction with humans or networked with other computers and machines. In addition to the industrial production process itself, parallel workflows of data streams need to be handled, which is becoming more and more important. This results in specific situations and risks. Essentially, the questions to be answered are: • which legal status can be attributed to dataii that is generated in the production process, and • how can the liability in cross-company digital production networks be assessed and mitigated. In the absence of legislation, case law and technical standards that satisfactorily regulate these issues, contractual solutions are required between the cooperation partners in B2B (business-to-business) transactions, for which some approaches are outlined here. Key findings: • The multi-dimensionally networked industry 4.0 is approaching the limits of our bilateral understanding of contracts due to the virtualisation technologies used. • Data, and in particuliar industrial machine data, have no rights in rem attached. There is no "data ownership". Although data is legally protected in several respects, this protection remains fragmentary and incomplete. • Rights to data must therefore be assigned by contract: It is advisable to follow the standards set by licence agreements from copyright law. Such contractual rights and obligations are only effective inter partes, but never in rem towards everybody. Data usage contracts must therefore be accompanied by effective technical and organisational measures for the de facto protection of data. • The German law on General Terms and Conditions, may regard liability limitations as ineffective even in business transactions. This, choice of foreign law clauses should be considered in the contract negotiations. • The networking of people, machines, virtualised and autonomous information technology systems makes it more difficult to attribute responsibility and prove causality. In the area of contractual liability, proof and presumption rules can be agreed. De lege ferenda, a compulsory insurance of the manufacturers and professional users as beneficiaries of such systems seems to make sense. • In all regulations, care must be taken to ensure that the right incentives for due diligence are in place for all parties involved.

Tokens are increasingly being generated on the basis of blockchain technology, which are intended to embody certain rights and obligations as cryptographically secured electronic coupons or digital coupons or vouchers . This paper provides an overview of the current state of affairs and the legal discussion of recent years and examines the extent to which blockchain tokens can be included under the existing German civil law framework of the BGB (German Civil Code). The key question is how goods can be legally represented ("tokenised") digitally and effectively by tokens instead of in documents. There are several approaches to make tokens marketable. Among them are also those that let the "right embodied in the token" follow the "right to -or ownership of- the token". This is followed by the question as to whether the data on the blockchain can provide sufficient evidence that may enable the purchase in good faith, since without that, secondary market trading is not viable. The article concludes with an outlook on possible solutions de lege ferenda, and looks into the question whether the Anti Money Laundering Directive 5 and the subsequent changes re. „Crypto Assets“ in German’y Banking Act, which came into effect Jan 01, 2020, have any civil law impact on tokens. This is an updated English version of https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3361976.

German Abstract: Auf Grundlage der Blockchain-Technologie werden zunehmend Token generiert, die als kryptographisch abgesicherte elektronische Coupons oder digitale Wertmarken bestimmte Rechte und Pflichten verkorpern sollen. Diese Arbeit gibt einen Uberblick uber den Sachstand sowie die rechtswissenschaftliche Diskussion der letzten Jahre und untersucht an mehreren Beispielen, inwieweit sich Blockchain-Token unter das bestehende deutsche zivilrechtliche Rahmenwerk fassen lassen. Dabei geht es vor allem um die Frage, wie sich Guter durch Token –anstatt in Urkunden- rechtswirksam digital reprasentieren („tokenisieren“) lassen. Hierzu existieren mehrere Ansatze, Token verkehrsfahig zu machen. Darunter sind auch solche, die das „Recht aus dem Token“ dem „Recht am Token“ folgen lassen. Daran schliest die Frage an, ob die Daten auf der Blockchain einen Rechtsschein setzen, der den gutglaubigen Erwerb ermoglichen kann. Ein Ausblick auf Losungsmoglichkeiten de lege ferenda schliest den Beitrag ab und geht dabei auch auf das Eckpunktepapier des BMJV vom Marz 2019 ein. Zusammenfassend ist festzuhalten: Assets lassen sich durchaus tokenisieren. Aber: - Currency Tokens sind kein Geld. - Virtuelle Wertpapiere, insbes. Gesellschaftsanteile (GmbH- oder Aktien-Token) sind nach derzeitiger Rechtslage kaum moglich. - Die Ubereignung von tokenisierten Assets lasst sich rechtssicher nur off-chain darstellen. - Die Ubertragung eines Tokens an einen neuen Inhaber fuhrt nicht zur Ubereignung des tokenisierten Assets. Ein gutglaubiger Erwerb ist damit nicht moglich, und damit auch kein Sekundarmarkthandel. Das Eckpunktepapier des Bundesjustizministeriums schlagt vor, diese Probleme mit der Einfuhrung elektronischer Wertpapiere auf einem staatlich uberwachten elektronischen Register zu losen. English Abstract: Blockchain technology is increasingly being used to generate tokens which, as cryptographically secured electronic coupons or digital certificates, are intended to embody certain rights and obligations. This paper provides an overview of the current state of research and the jurisprudential discussion of recent years to examine the extent to which blockchain tokens can be assessed under the existing German civil law framework. The main focus is on the question of how goods can be legally represented ("tokenized") digitally by tokens instead of in paper based certificates. There are several approaches to make tokens tradable, e.g. if and how the token holder can exercise her rights presumably embodied in the token. This is followed by the question of whether data on the blockchain can be considered a legal certificate that can enable the acquisition in good faith. The article concludes with an outlook on possible solutions de lege ferenda and also refers to the most recent proposals by the federal Ministry of Justice (BMJV) of March 2019.